ROCK MUSIC IN AMERICAN CULTURE: THE SOUNDS OF REVOLUTION

FORTHCOMING FROM MCFARLAND & CO., PUBLISHERS

Book Giveaway!

Goodreads Book Giveaway

A New Birth of Freedom

by Robert G. Pielke

Giveaway ends February 10, 2011.
See the giveaway details
at Goodreads.

Enter to win

LAUNCH PARTIES: East Coast/West Coast [The Twain Meet-eth]

Baltimore, MD -- Ukazoo Books
http://www.ukazoo.com/index.htm
TBA between May 30 and June 3


Claremont, CA -- Packing House Wine Merchants
http://www.packinghousewines.com/index.htm
Friday June 25, 2010 4-6 pm

"Why?" You ask unabashedly [yes, I know...adverb alert!].

Because these are my two home towns, that's why!

Special Release Offer!

A New Birth of Freedom retails for $14.99, but with this special newsletter offer, you can grab a copy for only $10.00!

Special offer does not include sales tax or shipping, and is limited to readers of this newsletter. Available only though the special link below.

Offer Expires: June 1, 2010

Contact: http://cyberwizardproductions.com/contact.html

Mention this special offer.

HERE'S THE FULL SIGNING SCHEDULE FOR MAY AND JUNE:

The first novel of the trilogy is A New Birth of Freedom: The Visitor [May 2010]

A gigantic, mega-spectacular bi-coastal book tour is about to commence. Read all about it right here!

APRIL 25, 2010 10:00-12:00 BOOTH 127: LA Times Festival of Books -- UCLA

MAY 26, 2010 10:30-11:20 Table 21: BookExpoAmerica 2010 -- Javits Center NYC

MAY 30m 2010 -- Ukazoo Books -- Baltimore noon-3 pm
http://www.ukazoo.com/directions.htm

JUNE 3, 2010 Kingston Row Books -- DC/MD 7:30 PM
http://members.verizon.net/~vze4nbyt/krbs_about.html#directions

JUNE 4, 2010 AFTERNOON: First Friday at 25C  Downtown Wine Shop 6-8 pm -- Gettysburg, PA
http://www.adamscountywinery.com/events.htm

JUNE 8, 2010 11:00-2:00: El Camino College Library Lobby -- Torrance, CA
http://www.elcamino.edu/about/directions.asp

JUNE 25, 2010 4-6 PM: Packing House Wine Merchants --Claremont, CA http://www.packinghousewines.com/pages/contact.htm

"Different Dreams...Different Dreams"

Some of you may remember this quotation by Colonel Arthur Fremantle of the Coldstream Guards and neutral observer with Longstreet's Corps Gettysburg. The quote may be fictitious -- I took it from the movie Gettysburg -- but it captures a lot of what is now happening in American culture.

With cries for "states rights" and "secession" again being voiced, we may well wonder exactly how far we've come since April, 1865.

I wonder if we can all agree on two things:

1) Slavery is intrinsically evil and any and all attempts to abolish it were and are justified.
2) Reconstruction after the Civil War was also evil in that it did nothing to "bind up the wounds" but rather was designed to exact vengeance.

...probably not...but it's about as close as we can come.

What's the solution?

The answer was there at Appomattox and in Washington: Grant's terms for surrender and Lincoln's directives to "Let 'em up easy."

IF these two procedures had been followed, then maybe we would not still have "different dreams."

Now, I'm a "dyed in the wool" Northerner -- Union Blue to the corps [sic]. I would have fought with the First Maryland [USA] against the First Maryland [CSA] on Culp's Hill at Gettysburg.

But doesn't mean I look at the officers and enlisted men of the CSA as I do the Nazi SS! I'd see them the way we now regard the German a Japanese soldiers of WWII. [One of my college professors even came to befriend the the Zero pilot who led the attack on Pearl Harbor! He was the guy who's book was the basis for Tora Tora Tora.]

I still and always will look at the "peculiar institution" embodied in the CSA as I still as always will look at Das Drittes Reich...inherently evil. But the institution and the people in it are not necessarily equivalent. [Remember, Robert E. Lee, Longstreet and Pickett all opposed slavery!]

To make the distinction symbolically clear: I [remember: me=Union guy] can honor the Confederate Battle flag and abhor the CSA's political flag. It's not a stretch! It's exactly what was done at Appomattox, when the union troops saluted Lee and his troops! I figure if the Union troops themselves could honor their adversaries, so can I. It's exactly what Lincoln advised in order to bind up the wounds -- to let 'em up easy. [Also keep in mind, as a symbolic factor, one of Lincoln's favorite songs was "Dixie" -- and he had white house band play it after the surrender at Appomattox to the startled audience on the white house lawn.]

Maybe some day our dreams will not be so different.

George Will Is Correct!

By now, everyone knows of the latest foot Harry Reid has placed firmly into his mouth, as quoted in a new book, Game Change, by journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann.

They report that Reid observed at the outset of the 2008 campaign for President, that Obama could be successful due in part to him being a "light-skinned African-American" and could speak without a "negro dialect."

Now, granted this is no longer an acceptable way to speak, we should keep in mind that this is an evaluative critique -- This language = not good but bad, undesirable, nasty. Note that it's not racist speech; it's tasteless speech. Racist speech would include something to the effect that Obama SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT be successful because he was an African-America.

There were no "shoulds" in Reid's comment; there were only "is-es." He was making a factual assertion, not an evaluative judgment.

He was making a truth claim. [By the way, Obama himself, agreed with him! Racial factors DID have an effect in the elections...duh....!]

So...he was doing so using "vile" speech (presumably "negro dialect" and "light-skinned") but that does not affect the truth quality of what he alleged.

I believe this was indeed the point George Will was making on This Week, this week!

And, by the way, as Robert Reich said on the program -- speaking about race is NOT necessarily racist.

Music & Writing: Siblings With A Parent In Common

I've often railed out (into the wind, it seems) that "writing is writing," that the differences among the various "kinds" of writing are insignificant. I pretty much want to make the same protestation that "music is music" with the same message in mind. However, rather than expand on this latter truism, I want to venture another, perhaps more controversial, equation, namely that "music is writing" and "writing is music"!

Oh sure the "grammar" of each is expressed in different terminology, but they mean the same thing.

Both use symbols as the basic mode of expression (words and notes) and rely on an underlying structure (grammar and notation).

The basic elements of music are melody, harmony and rhythm.

The basic elements of writing are genre, story and meter.

An engaging sentence (in any kind of writing) has a lyrical quality that blends in with the message being conveyed and does so with a satisfying accented.

An engaging riff (in any kind of music) has a stylistic quality that expresses a purpose in the piece as a whole and does so with a satisfying beat.

So, can any good writer be a good musician -- and vice versa? Hmmmmm.......

Oh yes...I forgot...these siblings only share one parent. The other is unique to each: music has the ears and writing has the eyes. Their common parent? The brain!!

Pielke's Books On Kindle

For the holidays, my three books are on sale for $1.00 a title!

ZOWIE!

It won't last for long...so get 'em while they're hot!

No Kindle???? Not to worry!!! Amazon has a FREE FREE FREE Kindle for your PC!

Dollar Books!

Free Kindle!

What's to lose?!?!

CLICK HERE:

The Pielkes and The Global Warming Debate

Ok...I'm now about to venture onto foreign soil...climate science!!

Whatever possessed me to attempt this, you wonder?

Good question -- glad you asked!

First of all, I see that many discussants on the web mix my brother and his son up with me. I'm "Robert" and they are "Roger Sr." and "Roger Jr." respectively. They're both scientists...I'm a bull-shitter [a.k.a. philosopher] and an author [soon to be a world-famous author -- see...a bull-shitter, right?]

Second, I have no intention of saying anything at all about the science involved in this debate. I'm going to comment on the logic involved -- or the illogic as the case may be.

Third, they get tons more press than I do...and I"m jealous! So I'm hoping to glom some of their publicity. My two new books coming out in a few months could use it! [A New Birth of Freedom: The Visitor -- sf/alt history and Rock Music in American History: Stop Children! What's That Sound?] See...I'm glomming!

There's actually a forth reason and probably worth mentioning, since I tend to ramble a bit. My brother got to go to Copenhagen last week for the big Global Warming thing. I would have liked to go to Europe too!! Not for that conference! I would have stopped off in Amsterdam for a legal puff or two! Yaah mon!! Rastafari!

Ok...The Global Warming Debate [ahem...]

Logically, there can only be three positions, it seems.

1. Human activity has no [or no significant] impact on the climate and thus climate change. My brother tells me these folks are called "climate skeptics" in the trade. What he didn't tell me is that these people are idiots! They're certainly not familiar with rational thought processes! Think about it: in order to VERIFY such a claim, they would have to KNOW ALL POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES and rule them out-- but that's just not LOGICALLY possible. [You can't know all possible alternatives because there always may be others you don't know about -- you can't know what you don't know!! -- LOGIC 101! Verifying a negative proposition is ILLOGICAL.]

You can FALSIFY this but NOT VERIFY it.

These people can be ignored...if possible! It seems that Sara Palin is a prime example of such idiocy [no surprise there]; she recently signed on to this creed. And it would seem to be a mere chimera that we can ignore her. Presumably there are no scientists in this category.

2. So...that leaves us with the proposition that human activity has SOME significant impact on the climate and climate change, right? This proposition CAN be VERIFIED but NOT FALSIFIED. All it would take is showing ONE example of how human activity can accomplish this. Then it would be shown to be true.

Now here's where it gets tricky, because there are two very different positions packed into this notion. The word "some" logically and literally means "at least one and possibly all"! [LOGIC 101]

2a. The human impact on the environment is pretty much exclusively due to our excess production of carbon dioxide in various ways. Or...to put it a bit more starkly. The human impact on the climate is due only to CO2 pollution. And here there is a LOGICAL problem similar to the "Idiot's Alternative" above: "Exclusivity" can not be verified! You can NOT empirically [a.k.a. show that ONLY ONE thing causes another, because you can not rule out ALL other possible causes -- since you can't know things you don't know! [LOGIC 101 again]

2b. SO the ONLY LOGICAL alternative is that there is AT LEAST ONE kind of impact humans can have on the climate. Then the issue is to list the possible causes and assess which ones are more or less significant. THIS is the category for genuine scientific thinking: to consider all known causes and evaluate them objectively.

The core of the GENUINE debate seems to be that some scientists feel the evidence shows that CO2 is the culprit and that other causes are insignificant [Gore's people?] while other scientists feel that there is as much or more evidence to support other causes [Pielke's people?].

Evidence [not politics as those other Pielkes would say] should decide the matter...and as with all good and genuine scientific propositions, the matter is ALWAYS open for further consideration.

Now...I'm going to sit back, pour myself a glass of Bordeaux and wait for my brother to call!

Afghanistan vis-a-vis Vietnam SIMPLIFIED!

It's really not all that difficult to compare the two "wars":

Similarities:

1. American troops were/are involved. Obvious, right?

2. Both were/are unwinnable. Why? Because there's STILL no clear meaning to what "winning" might mean.

3. American troops did and will inevitably leave -- having not accomplished an elusive "goal."

4. I would have taken genuine "guts" for a President to say -- in either case -- were not gonna go there!

Differences:

1. Vietnam was a "war."

2. Afghanistan is NOT a "war." Why? Because there no state or nation involved other than the U.S. and there was no "declaration" of war according to the Constitution --no government to surrender to us.

3. With Vietnam, it was at least arguable that the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were RIGHT. [No, maybe not in the way they conducted the war and treated their prisoners...but in their GOAL to unite -- or to preserve the unity of -- Vietnam.]

4. Al-Qaeda is not necessarily linked to Afghanistan. It is and HAS ALREADY been best and most effectively dealt with by POLICE action.

Breckenridge legalizes pot

DENVER (AP) - The ski town of Breckenridge has voted overwhelmingly to decriminalize marijuana possession.

Early returns Tuesday night showed the proposal winning with 72 percent of the vote. Breckenridge is poised to clear adults over 21 to have up to 1 ounce of marijuana.

The measure is largely symbolic, though. Pot possession remains a state crime for people without medical clearance.

"We believe this a signal to the state of Colorado and the nation as a whole," said Sean McAllister, a Breckenridge lawyer who pushed the decriminalization measure. Denver approved a similar decriminalization in 2005.

The Breckenridge vote came as communities nationwide are struggling with how to enforce pot laws at a time when medical marijuana has surged in popularity, especially in Colorado and California.

Elsewhere in Colorado, Denver voters appeared headed toward rejecting a measure that would have forced police to seize cars from people caught driving without a license. Dozens more municipal questions were on ballots.

Dear President Obama -- I Have Your Answers Right Here!

Afghanistan?

Health Care?

The Deficit?

Gay Rights?

Those are your problems -- not counting learning how to bowl, of course.

The answers are all very simple, you see -- and I'll spell them out for you and everyone else to see as well.

Afghanistan:

• It's NOT a WAR! Wars are fought against nations, and the neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda are "nations."
• These two are criminals and criminal organizations!
• You don't use armies to fight criminals -- you use the police!
• ALL the successful actions against terrorism have been conducted by THE POLICE!
• Hence -- well the conclusion is obvious, right!?

Health Care:

• Pass ANY bill you can.
• Get it up and running
• See where the problems and mistakes are
• Correct them by amending the program
• WE DO THIS ALL THE TIME

The Deficit:

• LEGALIZE Marijuana and TAX it!
• Decriminalize EVERYTHING ELSE and TREAT it!

Gay Rights:

• There is no problem!
• They have them -- all of them. So protect them!

Any questions??

Sincerely,

Your Pal, Bob Pielke

Medical Marijuana: The Camel's Nose Is In The Tent -- AT LAST!

I agree with the guy who regards this as a "Berlin Wall" kind of event! The "wall [stupid laws and ignorance regarding MJ] may not go down as fast, but it's ON THE WAY DOWN!

Down We Go!!

Yes We Can!

Yes We Cannibus?!

The Great America Novel

What a phrase! What a concept! What a crok!

Don't get me wrong. I have no intention of "dithering" with this iconic notion in any way. For those somewhat unfamiliar with the background of the phrase and the ideal it has come to represent, it was first mentioned as the title of an essay written by John William DeForest, a Civil War novelist, in The Nation magazine on January 9, 1868.

I need not mention the numerous candidates that have been informally submitted to receive this honorific title, since that's not the point of my asseverations at the moment. What I want to do is allege the "crok-ness" of this idea -- an idea which many have noted is Platonic form to its core. Plato believed that the truly ultimate and perfect "reality" is "formalized" in a reality beyond our sensory dimension -- its forms not ever being achievable in our sensory world.

So the "ideal" form of "the American Novel" -- in it's platonic sense -- is never achievable in actuality as we know it.

My problem is this: the very use of this "ideal" suggests that there are criteria (somewhere) that define a "great" novel. If so what are they? And who is responsible for them? What can it possibly mean?? I want to suggest that it can only mean that a lot of people like it! If it means anything more than this, I'd like to know what.

The upshot of this notion is and always has been that the evaluative process of aesthetic creations relies on some kind of absolutist guidelines, when in actual fact there are no such things -- nor can there be.

I think, for example, that Bram Stoker's Dracula is "the great American novel"!!

Am I wrong????

Why???

Interracial Sex -- The More The Better!

Well what do ya know...good ol' fashion in-you-nose racism still exists!

Whew...thank the gods...I thought we had lost it forever!

Interracial couple denied marriage license in LA

Think about it, if there were not turds like Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, still among us [like the proverbial fungus of mid-50s slang], who would we use as a target?

Every positive position needs a negative to oppose. Here we've got one -- straight out of "central casting," it seems.

Oh, Atticus Finch, where be ye when we need ye so much?!

I've LONG been a vocal advocate [and a participant in as much as possible] of interracial SEX [with or without marriage] to resolve completely the "American Dilemma" over race.

In this spirit, I think somebody should send the good justice of the peace, keith bardwell, a volunteer of some ethnicity not his own to "stroke" his "cockles and mussels" to show him the light -- or just go yourself, if you happen to qualify!

Where's the TV News?

Ahhhhh....remember the days of "The Huntley-Brinkley Report" and "The CBS News with Walter Cronkite"?

No??? [Damn, I'm getting old!]

Anyway, at about 6 pm every weekday evening we were all treated to a half-hour's worth of the "news of the day" [actually a summary of what the editors and writers deemed significant -- their value judgments (but that's another blog)]. It supplemented the daily newspapers. [Remember them?]

Oh, sure, there are still news shows [emphasis on "shows"] on the major networks each evening -- a half hour of national stuff and a half hour of local stuff. But they're more like entertainment conceits, like US and People magazines.

Most of the time on TV is allotted to "commentaries" about the news. Fox comments from the "classical liberal" position, and MSNBC comments from the "utilitarian" position. [Two different perspectives of authentic "liberalism."] CNN sort of does both. BUT THERE'S NO NEWS!

I must confess, I do enjoy the banter between and among the commentators -- occasionally!! But I'd sure like to hear the NEWS once in a while.

What is "news" you many wonder?

Good question...glad you asked!

It's the reporting of the important and significant events of the day, a day which was "like all days filled with events that altar and illuminate our times." [If you don't know the quote -- look it up.]

Can such reporting be objective? Of course not! As I mentioned above, the very selection process is evaluative -- hence subjective. So then, how does this this so-called "reporting" differ from "commentaries" about the news?

Intent! That's how...the aforementioned, venerable reporters tried to be "fair and balanced"!

I miss that...

Of course I miss The Howdy Doody Show too -- and his friends like Buffalo Bob and Flub-a-Dub, but most of all, Princess Summerfallwinterspring! [Kowabonga!]

"Those were the days, my friend...we thought they'd never end..."

Writing is Writing?

So...I was conversing a while ago with some friends who knew I was in the midst of both writing a novel and updating a non-fiction book I did a few years ago about rock music in American culture. They seemed bemused.

It turns out, they didn't see how it was possible to concentrate on such different projects at the same time. When I asked, "What are you talking about, mon ami?" -- Well, I really didn't say this with the Francophilial affectation -- they said something about two contrary kinds of writing. (An aside: The "logician" in me wants to point out that this is not the same as contradictory writing -- which is essentially unintelligible.) By this they meant that the mind-set for doing one excludes the other.

My reply was, "huh?"

After a bit more reflection, I decided my answer should have been. "What are you talking about. Writing is writing!"

Hence, this blog...

I've always assumed that no matter what the subject matter, no matter what the purpose, no matter what the content, you still need to utilize the same language, the same grammar, the same structure!

There's going to be a "story" of some kind -- even if it's a technical piece on how to put together a kid's bicycle! It's going to have a beginning, a complication, problems to overcome and a dénouement.

Plus, you've got to make it intelligible and interesting and to the point -- in other words you have to communicate!

So there. I guess that settles that issue...right??

"In the Basement of the Ivory Tower" [The Atlantic]

Professor X's comments on the state of acquiring a university education is summarized at the top of the attached article by the editors at The Atlantic thusly*:

"The idea that a university education is for everyone is a destructive myth."

Having served time at the university, state college and community college levels of academia, and having had similar if not identical experiences as "Professor X," I not only recommend this commentary to anyone with even the faintest glimmer of a scintilla's iota of interest in education -- I charge you on pain of academic "water-boarding" to take it to heart! [Damn...did that sentence even make sense!!??]

Of course everyone has a right [a negative, not a positive right] to a university eduction. And everyone has a duty to be educated. But there is something fundamentally wrong with our current educational apparatus, from the ground up, I might add.

It begins with our basic assumptions about education...our thinking about education.

Some fundamental "rethinking" is long overdue.

"Unschoolers" have one approach to this enigma -- and it may not be the only approach -- but I think they would agree with the notion that there is a problem.

* Yes, I know "thusly" is a pointless synonym for "thus." So....????!

The Health Care Debate! Has Everyone Lost Their Minds??!

I am simply mystified by all the useless debates about "what will happen if..." a given option is included in this proposal.

The ONLY way to assess the results IS TO ADOPT SOMETHING AND TRY IT OUT! Then, if it stinks...CHANGE IT!

What happened to "good old American PRAGMATISM" -- the only genuinely American philosophical movement so far to have serious standing.

TRIAL AND ERROR!

How else can we learn anything other than taking a look at our mistakes and correcting them!?

"Gates-Gate"?!

Of all of the opining about this infamous incident, Robin Wells' op-ed piece in the Huffington Post seems, to me, to hit the nail sqarely on the head.

It's not so much her opinion -- although I like that too -- it's her reasoning process! She likens this drama to a family psycho-drama being dealt with by a wise counselor. [Not necessarily a "wise Latina"!].

It's not often I find an argument by analogy to be worth a "pitcher of warm spit" [it's a famous quote by a rather unknown VP about his VP job with a rather more well-known P -- look it up!].

Here's the article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-wells/hard-truths-and-the-teach_b_245856.html

One major caveat -- her detestable use [and the similar odious use by others] of the phrase, "teachable moment"!!

In my former "life" as a college/university professor, I'd this bit of tripe oh sooooooo often -- as if it had any meaning. Just try to define it and you'll see what I mean -- you can't....you betcha you can't!

But back to Wells on Gates-gate: Read it!

More on the Torture Debate

sigh......how oh how can people be enticed to THINK!!

There are TWO issues:

Here's one --

Although I've mentioned this elsewhere in this blog [http://www.bobpielke.com/2008/12/bad-argument-for-torture-again.html], the typical "pro-torture" [PT] argument is fatally flawed in that it is invariably presented as a DEDUCTIVE argument when in reality the only possible "PT" argument is INDUCTIVE!

• Given that the only way to prevent innocent lives being lost in a terrorist attack is to torture a terrorist who can reveal the information sufficient to prevent the attack, then torture is justified.
• Well, "duh"!!!!
• The premise(s) already contains the conclusion!
• It's "circular" -- as are all deductive arguments!!
• That's why deductive arguments always have a conclusion that is certain!

The issue is whether ANY of the claims implicit in the premise can be established!

• Why is this only way?
• How can we know if the terrorist knows the information?
• These questions require EVIDENCE -- hence INDUCTIVE reasoning.
• BUT -- we can NEVER know if we have ALL the evidence!
• Hence, inductive reasoning can NEVER produce a conclusion with certainty.
• ALL evidentiary claims are MORE OR LESS PROBABLE -- ONLY

The other issue is one of morality --

It's the question as to whether this issue is deontological or teleological!

1. Teleological arguments always maintain that the amount of desirable consequences is how we should determine what's right and wrong. [How much good over evil is likely to be produced.]

2. Deontological arguments always maintain that right and wrong are determined by the intrinsic qualities of the act itself -- regardless of the consequences.

Take note -- much of the debate over torture is really a debate over which form of moral reasoning applies!

And...there is NO WAY TO ANSWER THIS DILEMMA!!

Why?

Good question...glad you asked!

It's because when you argue for one of these approaches you MUST MAKE A MORAL ARGUMENT. [We should reason as teleologists!]

Hahahha....but you can't DO this!! You are USING one of the two forms of reasoning -- to justify the form of reasoning you are using!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's CIRCULAR REASONING!!!!